John Hart

MEDT 7490
Dr. DAlba
Summer 2015
Review of Literature on the Effectiveness of Concept Mapping for
High School Level Students.
Concept mapping is a way to visually present information about abstract ideas. As
opposed to the written word alone, concept maps depend largely on graphic representation and
organization of the information. They promote active learning on the part of students, who are
often called on to make their own maps of the information being learned. Concept maps can be
hierarchical, chronological, spider maps, flow charts, and system maps, among others (Harris &
Zha, 2013). This paper seeks to review literature on the effectiveness of concept mapping for
use in the high school setting.
Harris and Zhas article, Concept Mapping, A Critical Thinking Technique, described a
study on the use of concept maps to improve higher order critical thinking skills. For their
purposes, they eliminated many of the forms of concept maps outright as unsuitable. Some maps
(spider, flow chart) depict too little information, and others (chronological, hierarchical) fail to
adequately show relationships. But the authors believe that systems concept maps will present
the complex information needed to facilitate critical thinking. This is the format of concept
mapping that was used in this research study.
In the review of literature on the subject, the authors chronicled the rising emphasis that
schools have placed on critical thinking skills in the past few decades. With the goal of fostering
thinking citizens in a free society, critical thinking has become a main focus of the American
educational system. However, despite much time, money, and effort devoted to improving

critical thinking, it remains a challenging educational hurdle. Many students, even at the college
level, still show no capacity for effective critical thinking.
A Solomon four group design, made up of 242 first year university students, was used to
gauge the effect of systems concept maps on critical thinking. The four groups were four sections
of an introductory psychology course, with the dependent variable being the complex concepts
introduced in the course. The independent variable was the varied use of systems concept maps
for the four groups. Group one used no maps, while group three had optional, but not required,
use of concept maps. Group two required students to construct their own systems concept maps
of the material and submit them before the test, and group four did the same, with the only
difference being that they were allowed to reconstruct their concept map from memory just prior
to the test and were then allowed to use it on the exam.
This study was conducted over three units in the course, with a test at the end of each
unit. An ANOVA one-way analysis of variance was used to gauge the results of concept
mapping on each test. For the first unit, the two groups that were required to use systems
concept maps showed statistically significant higher critical thinking skills as reflected in the
scores on the test. The results of the second unit and test were the same. The third unit and test,
however, showed no statistically significant difference in critical thinking as seen in the test
scores between those who used concept maps and those who did not.
I think this study has important implications for the high school classroom, despite the
study being conducted on early college level students. Critical thinking is a skill that teachers
are expected to cultivate and students are to be able to demonstrate. The use of concept
mapping, especially systems concept maps, seems to improve critical thinking when learning
about some complex ideas. The authors went into some detail about how the third test, the one

where the use of concept maps made no difference in test scores, differed as to the ideas and
concepts being studied, and how the other two units were similar studies of complex systems. I
think that the research methods used were sound, although no mention was made of the results
for the group where students had the option to create concept maps or not create them. Similarly,
individual information for the fourth group, which was allowed to remake their maps right before
the test, was not listed. The main issue was that the raw data for the results was not provided,
meaning there is no way to interpret the scores other than the way the authors presented. Despite
these small flaws, I learned through this study that the use of concept mapping is a worthwhile
method of improving critical thinking skills when teaching complex systems to high school
students.
Concept Mapping as an Instructional Strategy for High School Biology, a 1990 article
by Schmid and Telaro, examines (as the title might suggest) the use of concept mapping in the
teaching of secondary level biology. The authors want to find out if using concept mapping can
better impart the complex ideas found in biology on at the high school level than traditional
methods. They proposed a simple research study to find out if using concept mapping
techniques during instruction is more effective at communicating what is usually a difficult
subject for many secondary students.
In reviewing past literature on the topic, the authors pointed to disappointingly low
standardized test scores in biology across the United States. Efforts to improve this have focused
more on changing the curriculum rather than changing the learning process. Any attempts at
addressing the instructional process have been unrealistic to implement in a standard high school
environment. Concept mapping, however, offers a better alternative to the traditional high
school instructional method of rote memorization. Concept maps can better address the complex

relationships surrounding biological systems, the authors note in their literature review. Concept
maps, by their subjective nature, also lend themselves to individualized, rather than standardized
learning, increasing personal involvement in the learning process. Furthermore, constructing
these maps calls on students to take learned information, organize it, and synthesize new
information and conclusions.
The research methods used by Schmid and Telaro were straightforward and simple. A
pre-test was given at a high school before the biology class began to rank students based on
reading level, and then those students were randomly assigned to one of two biology classes,
with one serving as a control group, and the other an experimental group. The control group
would be taught a biology unit using traditional, teacher-oriented methodsmainly lectures and
student work from textbooks and supplemental materials. The experimental group would be
taught the same unit but based around the construction of concept maps. The students in the
experimental group would still be gleaning core concepts from the teachers instruction, but at
least half of their day was spent making concept maps about what they had learned. The teacher
instructed students on the proper way to create a concept map and what she wanted to see from
their finished products. Over the course of the four week unit, students in the control group
made seven concept maps on various biology subjects.
Results were gathered from both groups by analyzing the scores of both a pretest and
posttest on the biology content being studied. Specifically, the ANOVA two-way method was
used to determine the effectiveness of concept mapping for students of all reading levels. The
researchers found that scores in the experimental groups were higher across all reading levels
than their control group counterparts. Of special note was the vast improvement that concept
mapping demonstrated with the low ability students. The higher the reading ability of the

student, the less effective the concept mapping method was, but the higher performing students
still showed marginal improvement in scores over the control group.
I think this study was very well done and presents extremely useful information on
concept map implementation in high school teaching. Of particular interest was the effectiveness
of concept mapping for lower level students. I was not aware of this and frankly was surprised
that this method worked better for them. I figured that the concept maps might be too confusing
or too complex for them to learn from but it appears I was completely wrong. This is of utmost
importance since these students are who we are actively targeting the most in education today.
Concept mapping seems to be a very useful tool in reaching lower performing students. The
only flaw in the research method is one of internal validity. Nowhere in the article does it
mention if two different teachers or the same teacher was used in both groups. I would hope that
they would have used the same teacher, but from my reading, this is not clear. If it was two
different teachers, that could account for the discrepancies between the experimental and control
groups.
A similar study I encountered about the effects of concept mapping was entitled A
Comparative Study of the Effects of a Concept Mapping Enhanced Laboratory Experience on
Turkish High School Students Understanding of Acid-Base Chemistry, by Ozmen,
Demircioglu, and Coll. The title pretty much says it all; the authors wished to know how use of
classroom concept mapping strategies increased 10th grade students understanding of chemistry.
This study also coincided with the comparison of laboratory instruction techniques as opposed to
more traditional, teacher-oriented instruction methods.
In their literature review, the authors noted that science learners approach the subject not
as blank slates but rather build upon past experience and knowledge about the world around

them. Along with this comes incorrect preconceived notions about scientific principles that are
hard to overcome through conventional teaching methods. Furthermore, due to the complex
systems and concepts inherent in science, and chemistry in particular, students find it hard to
relate to the subject matter. In the same manner, scientific terminology is largely foreign to high
school level students, creating a verbal divide that must be overcome before any real learning
about science can begin. To overcome these hurdles, hands-on laboratory experiments and
concept mapping have been shown to be effective at teaching chemistry. The laboratory work
makes students an active participant in the learning process and concept maps help students
organize the detailed relationships between different principles in chemistry. The authors also
noted that concept mapping lends itself well to collaborative learning between students, allowing
it to seamlessly dovetail with the group work usually employed in chemistry labs.
The subjects of the study were 59 Turkish 10th grade chemistry students. The students
were from two classes at the same high school, were roughly equal in numbers of girls and boys,
and were all similar in socioeconomic status. One class would serve as a control group, and the
other as the interventional group. The same teacher would teach both classes. Over four weeks,
the control group would learn about the unit (acid-base chemistry) through traditional methods
teacher centered, lecture based instruction (comprising over 75% of class time), followed by
worksheets completed by using the textbook.
The intervention group was taught the same subject through eight separate laboratory
activities where students conducted hands-on activities regarding acids and bases. These lab
activities were followed with small and whole group discussions. Finally, students were
presented with the concept map portion of the lesson. The first few maps used were empty and
the students filled in the blanks, but after they had become comfortable with the process, students

were asked to create their own concept maps. A pretest was given to both groups before the unit
and an equivalent posttest was administered after.
The results of the pretest showed no significant difference in the chemistry knowledge of
the two groups before the study was conducted. However, the intervention group showed
statistically significant higher achievement on the posttest than did the control group. The mean
score of the intervention group on the posttest was 78.93, whereas the control groups mean was
only 57.36.
This was a well conducted study and it showed convincing evidence that the methods
used in the experimental groups were more effective at conveying the complex concepts in the
chemistry unit than the more traditional methods. But, the authors concede that because they
were essentially testing two different methods of instruction together (laboratory work and
concept mapping) it was difficult to pinpoint exactly to what degree each method succeeded in
helping the students understand chemistry. It could be that one or the other was responsible for
the lions share of the success in the treatment group. I think that a clearer understanding of the
effectiveness of concept mapping (or laboratory-based instruction) would have been gained from
focusing on just one of these methods.
Despite this shortcoming, I think this study, along with the other research referenced in
the literature review, shows that concept mapping has a positive impact on high school students
when learning complex concepts. From this study I learned how effective student-driven
instruction can be when covering complex subjects, and the role that concept mapping can play
in that can be significant. They allow the student to distill complicated information and work
especially well in group-centered, hands-on learning experiences.

Another article centered on high school chemistry was Concept Mapping in Chemistry
Lessons: Tools for Inculcating Thinking Skills in Chemistry Education, by Osman, Wahidin,
and Meerah. This study, conducted in Indonesia, was to determine the effectiveness of concept
mapping and also concept mapping in conjunction with vee maps as compared to conventional
methods. Vee maps are, like concept maps, graphic organizers, but they have a rigid structure
that starts with recording an event, and then branching off from that (in a two-prong V letter
shape) to list records, claims and conclusions about the event on one side, and concepts and
relationships on the other side. The students in the study were also ranked according to academic
ability so that the effects of the treatments could be seen at each student level.
In analyzing past literature on the subject, the authors noted promising evidence that the
experiment would be successful in improving student performance in chemistry. They noted that
most teachers tend to teach in the way that they were taught, which in most cases was a
traditional method. Few students are taught how to learn. Graphic organizers like the concept
map accomplish this task by asking students to create organized visual representations of
information, with the teacher serving mainly as a facilitator. Vee maps do much the same thing,
but due to their more complex nature, the research shows that they seem to only work well with
students of high cognitive ability.
For this study, 360 Indonesian students were divided into three groups: a control group
that would be taught the periodic table and chemical bonding through traditional methods, an
experimental group taught the same lesson but with concept mapping as the central focus, and
another experimental group that was also taught this topic but with both concept maps and vee
maps. Both a pretest and posttest consisting of 36 multiple choice questions were administered
to study how well the students responded to the three instruction methods. The students were

from three different high schools in the same school district in Indonesia, but the authors claimed
that their preparations assured that the three student groups were evenly matched as far as
student ability. Each group had an even distribution of low, middle, and high achieving students,
based on past academic performance.
The ANOVA method was used to analyze the results of the scores on the posttest. The
results were very interesting. Overall, the group that used both vee maps and concept maps
showed the most improvement, with their scores increasing 26% from the pretest to the posttest.
The concept mapping-only group showed a 17% gain, while the control group showed a 19%
improvement. However, when looking at the improvements for each academic subgroup, we see
a different side to this study. As predicted, high ability level students responded the most
favorably to the vee map and concept map instruction method, with a 35% improvement. Low
level students responded to both experimental treatments very poorly. They showed only a 10%
growth in these groups, but responded to traditional instruction with a 34% improvement in
scores. The moderate ability level students also seemed to favor the vee map/concept map
instruction with 24% growth. Though the concept map-only group was not the preferred method
for any group, the high and moderate level students responded better to this treatment better than
the traditionally taught group.
The main flaw I can see in this study is in the grouping and subgrouping. Three schools
were used for this study, and though they were in the same school district, that does not assure a
similar socioeconomic level, school climate, facilities, and quality of teacher. Indeed, it might be
that the control group had a better effect on lower level students because the teacher had taught
in that way for years and had refined her traditional methods. In the same way, it is hard to say
that any of the results from the three groups were not influenced by teacher ability. Nowhere in

the article did it say that teachers were given special instruction about how to teach using the
newer methods, so that might have played a part in the results. The groups were also seemingly
subdivided for numerical symmetry rather than truly measuring their academic ability. The 360
students were divided into three groups of 120, which were further subdivided into three equal
ability level groups, comprised of 40 students in each of the high, moderate, and low ability
levels. In the effort to keep numbers round and equal, it makes it difficult to compare the
separate subgroups since a low level student could have been a moderate level student if he had
only been in another group.
This article stands in stark contrast to one mentioned previously by Schmid and Telaro
(1990), which concluded that concept mapping had the greatest effect on low level students. I
tend to agree with the former assessment, as the present study had flaws mentioned above. I did
learn about vee maps from this study, something that I confess I had trouble understanding even
after reading the section describing them many times. After grasping how vee maps work,
however, I can see how this complicated but useful tool could help high level students exceed.
Lower level students, however, responded most unfavorably to this type of treatment, so
designing lessons for all students becomes more complicated for the teacher. This is something
to keep in mind and necessitates differentiation when planning.
The final article took a different approach than the others examined for this assignment.
The effects of image-based concept mapping on the learning outcomes and cognitive processes
of mobile learners, by Yen, Lee, and Chen, compared the effectiveness of two types of concept
mapping instead of comparing concept map-based instruction to traditional methods. The
authors sought to find out if image-based concept maps were more effective than text-based
concept maps in teaching mobile learners, who tend to view course material on small screens

such as a smart phones and tablets. The study seems to be driven by the obvious problem that
little screens mean that a lot of words might be hard to read and that images might more
effectively convey information.
The authors note past literature on the subject, citing references to the trend that
technology is shrinking the devices we are using to learn. Screens are smaller and the traditional
keyboard has largely disappeared. Using text-based instruments results in fragmented
information transfer and an ultimately frustrating learning experience. The authors referred to
much research that linked concept mapping to improved organization, understanding, and
retrieval of information. What was not as well documented, however, was how concept mapping
must adapt to the limitations of mobile technology.
The research methodology of this study was centered on 86 college freshmen in northern
Taiwan. These students were in two sections of the same class at a science and technology
university. One section would be taught a unit on Local Area Network Planning and
Implementation using text-based concept mapping, while the other section would cover the
material using image-based concept mapping. The unit was taught over a six week period, and
students in both groups worked in pairs, completing the course work using PDA mobile phones
with wireless internet access. A single test, given after completion of the unit, was used to
determine the effectiveness of both concept mapping strategies. In addition, students were given
a cognitive level checklist after the treatment. These open ended survey questions were
conducted to gain qualitative data on learners opinions on both of the methods in six separate
cognitive domains: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
After conducting the posttest, no statistically significant difference in scores was found
between the image-based and text-based concept mapping groups. However, the cognitive

checklist showed higher perceived competences in a couple of the cognitive domains for the
image-based concept map group. In the areas of understanding and creating, the image-based
group showed significantly higher checklist scores than did the text-based group.
Furthermore, in analyzing the concept maps created by both groups, the researchers noted
other positives of the image-based maps. By taking pictures of new concepts instead of writing
about them, students were able to instantly create the parts of their concept maps instead of
tediously writing out the information. In addition, image-based concept maps were clearer and
less cluttered. Also, the images were usually hyperlinked to information, offering all the
advantages of text-based maps. Finally, the image-based concept maps showed a deeper
understanding of the course material, with more in-depth concepts applied to the maps when
compared to those that were merely text based.
I think this study was informative but would have been better served by a pretest to gauge
prior knowledge of the subject matter. The posttest results did not show the same level of
mastery that the cognitive checklist showed. This could be because the image-based concept
map group had less prior knowledge but actually learned more throughout the unit, as the
checklist suggested. It could also point to the fact that the posttest did not accurately measure the
students depth of knowledge about the subject matter. Without a pretest, it was hard to say what
the cause of the discrepancy was. It can be assumed that students attending the same university
would be of similar academic ability, but with a sample size this small, that cannot be claimed
with any certainty.
Though this study was conducted with college freshman, I think that the results can be
applied at the high school level as well. Image-based concept maps seem to be more in line with
how we are viewing information in our modern technology-driven world, fueled as it is by the

electronic tablet and ubiquitous smart phone. This is especially true of younger people; high
school students are never without their smart phone. Text based concept mapping might seem to
be able to convey more information, but as I have learned this semester, finding the right image
to convey an idea is no simple task. It requires much thought and planning, and cannot be
faked by a lot of dry and tech heavy blocks of text. This article reinforced a lot of what we
have been learning about the power of images and how they can be used in instruction. I will
surely make use of this in planning my own concept-mapping lessons in the future.

References
Harris, C.M., & Zha, S. (2013). Concept mapping: a critical thinking technique. Education, 134
(2), 207-211.
Osman, K., Wahidin, & Meerah, S. M. (2013). Concept mapping in chemistry lessons: tools for
inculcating thinking skills in chemistry learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12
(5), 666-681.
Ozmen, H., Demircioglu, G., & Coll, R. K. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a
concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on turkish high school students
understanding of acid-base chemistry. International journal of Science and Math
Education, 7(1), 1-24.
Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high
school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 78-85.
Yen, J. C., Lee, C. Y., & Chen, I. J. (2012). The effects of image-based concept mapping on the
learning outcomes and cognitive processes of mobile learners. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(2), 307-320.